HMS Spey has arrived in Portsmouth after construction on the Clyde by BAE Systems and a set of sea trials.
The Royal Navy say that she will continue her generation to warship at HM Naval Base Portsmouth before hoisting the White Ensign for the first time next year.
“After delivery to the base this morning under a Red Ensign, representatives of the Royal Navy, BAE Systems and Defence Equipment and Support gathered in the Wardroom to sign her acceptance contracts and welcome her to her base-port. This marks the end of construction for this batch of five OPVs and allows a Blue Ensign to be raised, denoting a ship in Government service.”
Her first Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Commander Ben Evans, said in a news release:
“This is a fantastic day for my Ship’s Company, our friends and families, affiliates and everyone involved in the Batch 2 Offshore Patrol Vessel build project. I would like to extend my thanks to BAE Systems for the determination and hard work they have put into getting us to this important milestone and the continued support they will provide in the coming months.”
It is understood that Spey is expected to be ready for operations by early summer 2021; like her sisters these will be general patrol duties, anti-smuggling taskings and providing humanitarian relief where it’s needed.
Great stuff, these ships weren’t wanted by the RN but will prove useful. Minimal upgrades and the use of drones will make them excellent force multipliers. The RM’s new doctrine will mean they need various platforms to fulfil their role, including the Rivers 2s.
Bofors 40mm and associated gear would the the only real upgrade needed I believe.
It’s been done to death here so many times. Tell you what though, what fine looking ships.
Despite the financial issues with TOBA, I’m a big supporter of these vessels.
Couldn’t agree more.
No need to drop a larger expensive 40mm in there. If it every required it – the Martlet mounts would bolt on to the 30,mm just nicely & be done rather quickly no doubt.
I’m a fan of OPV’s too and the Rivers are good looking ships. Personally, the lack of a hanger facility is more of a limit to these vessels than any armament debates.
Yes, good point. I’d also suggest a top notch Sigint fit would not go amiss either, especially if they are to be forward deployed as presence vessels.
They have enough space to be fitted with a telescopic type hangar. Only problem with that would be the fact they wouldn’t be able to land a Merlin. I think a Merlin wouldn’t ever get onto one of these vessels though as we simply dont have enough merlins and should keep them on the frigates and QE carriers
XD I wish I could see the time that George posted the article so we could have a “Time to 40mm” counter.
How things change eh Dern ?? It used to be a 76 mil that the clamour was for. I like the idea of the ‘counter’ though.
But apparently it is OK to talk about upgrading them as long as it is the ‘right’ type of upgrade in your opinion.
Because the idea of a hangar, usually a telescopic one, complements the River role, while the 40mm doesn’t. TBF if we get containerised UAV’s (which Rivers can take without any modification) even the hangar would be too much.
Sorry Andy, but in many ways I agree with Rob. The Batch 2 OPV could have been so much more for the same price. For example the Royal Thai Navy has two modified River class Batch 2 the Krabi class. For a lower price they have a 76mm gun and two 30mm guns as well as mini and or gpmg’s. If the UK Government could have done the same it would also give the RN OPV Batch 2s the ability to carry LMMs. These would have been a much more potent vessels for overseas policing duties even if the LMMs were only one five round fit per gun and no reloads.
Then comes the vessels built by BAE for the Royal Oman Navy the Khareef class, costing £400M for three vessels including training they come with a hanger for a medium size whirlybird (Wildcat and Merlin. Medium helicopters are upto 45,000lbs, Merlin is 32,300lbs). At the same time they have a 76mm gun, the RN could have replaced that with the 57mm gun, two 30mm guns (possibly from decommisioned ships) which could have been fitted with LMMs, 12 VL Mica SAM missiles, the RN could have 12 VL Sea Ceptors (from Type 23s) and 8 Exocet Bl III anti ship missiles, the RN could have the Harpoon (no longer front line missiles but still capabily against second or third tier opponents).
The main diffrence is the Khareef’s are 9m longer and have a meter more in the beam with a reduction of 2 weeks endurance. At the same cost of a RN Batch 2. In return you have a small well armed combat vessel to police the Falklands, Straits of Hormuz, Bab el Mandeb, possibly one out of Scalloway or Akrotiri. The only thing that the Batch 2s in the current configuration is really useful for is the Caribbean but even then it is limited as it HAS no whirlybird hanger.
The way I see it is that the British Government/MoD missed the possibility to have effective combat vessels at a reasonable price. I can understand the reluctance or the RN to ask for such ships as there is the real possibility that the Government will see the chance to reduce frigate numbers as in reality the weapons fit of the 2,600 ton £125M Khareef ships would and could sink the current concept £250M Type 31s with ease. Then again the T31s have a world wide deployment capability whilst a well armed Batch 2 is regional.
Could a Khareef be useful in transAtlantic convoy duty, I don’t know possibly with an extra 5-10m in length and a meter extra beam and the Thales CAPTAS 4 Compact Dependent Tow then yes. Fit them with a small bow sonar then even better. They could due to the design of the hull work well in the GIUK GAP. With the extra ten meters the at sea time would compare with the River Batch 2s, 35 instead of the Khareef’s 21.
So the result for the same price that the UK/MoD payed for the Batch 2 River’s we could have had 5 Khareef’s with and extra £25M we could have had a all round escort ship able to carry out a 35 day patrol with anti sub/anti air/anti ship/drug intradiction/anti smuggling and a 35 day helicopter capability (weather permiting) as well as a transAtlantic convoy capability. What do we have well in Army terms a snipper with a Browning 9mm, capabile but not equipped, if you are going to equip the snipper with a 9mm what is the point of spending the money. It is the same with ships if you are going to spend the money why not equip the ship.
If any MPs read this site then I want the answer to the question why did we spend so much on the Batch 2’s when we could have had Khareef’s for the same price?
Fair play Ron, you’ve taken a lot of time to draft what has been discussed time and again on here about this. Say the UK did get these vessels, that’s gonna be a lot of hardware to maintain and people to do it. It all adds up on what were designed as a relatively simple platform. The relatively large size of these vessels compared to the ones they have replaced gives them a huge advantage already, time on station, the ability to support a helo, the space for extra personnel…. it all adds up to making them much better PATROL VESSELS than their predecessors. These aren’t designed as Major War Vessels and its a mistake to regard them as such, despite their tonnage.
Hi Andy P, I am not thinking abot the OPV Batch 2 as a major war vessel, but as a vessel that can take care of itself in any region with the added ability for trans Atlantic duties. If they were built right it would leave our limited FFGs and DDGs for blue water operations.
However what gets me really peed off is for Oman we built a very good regional multi purpose combat ship and for the UK we get a pop gun for more money.
As for personnel a wepons officer and his/her team is trained to deal with everything below 220v, comms, radars, missiles big guns small guns, etc. So why spend money on that training if all they have is a pop gun.
As for manning a ship, what many people especially government and civies don’t understand that this is the most important and costly part of a ship life.
However if I am going to spend a lot of time and money training these people then I sure as hell want to make sure they have what they need to come home. Then they can pass on what they have learnt in real life, that inculdes combat.
With me it was two and a half years in Harrogate when it was the AAC RS then a further year with my Foreman of Sigs in the field before I was allowed to work on my on. When I reserviced the RN took another two years, ( God I went through hell for that request the CO NE Command district Cattrick HQ ripped me a new hole).
So give the crews the ships and material they need and you will get the numbers. If you dont what is the reason to join, to be some of the best eductated the nation has, train the hell out of them, take them far from home with a request for leave not a right, so they don’t or can’t see their loved ones, give them the off chance of being killed and or injured, then abandoned by the government. Give the crews a good chance of carrying out the job required with the numbers of ships, tech and weapons needed to go into harms way and people will want to join.
The problem is you can’t compare it like that without taking into account the TOBA. The intital cost of the ships was as high as it was not because the ships where so expensive, but because the cost and build time of them was deliberatly inflated by the govt in order to keep the workforce on the Clyde intact for the Type 26 build. The RN at the time was happy to soldier on with the Batch 1’s and really only took on the Batch 2’s as a (civilian) job creation scheme (given how things have gone they’re happy to have them now so that’s lucky).
Rivers have what they need to come home. They are not going out looking for a big gun fight, OPV’s in general do not do that. These are Patrol Vessels, they’re purpose is to go to low threat environments and carry out missions there that do not require big guns, loads of missiles etc, specifically to free up ships that have all that for more dangerous taskings. The more you bolt onto a River, the worse they get at that job.
As for “getting the numbers” that’s not the issue. The issue is the MoD and the RN have a limited amount of capital, and we want the service people we can AFFORD to, as much as possible, be concentrated on our combat platforms. Increasing crew numbers for an OPV doesn’t magically create new jobs, it draws funding and jobs from other projects like Type 31, and Type 26.
Dern, I agree with both points that you make. Yet in the points you make you don’t understand my arguement. You say for example that the MoD has a limited ammount of capital, I agree, so with that being the case should we not get the most capable platform for the limited capital. I think you would agree with me and say yes, if that is correct what is the more capable a Batch 2 River class, a Krabi class or a Khareef class ship, all built by BAE all costing about the same the diffrence is in replenishment and in the case of the Khareef an extra 40 men and women to make up the crew. Surly we could find an extra 400 sailors to fix this issue, especialy as the T26 would have a much smaller crew than a T23. It is still a job creation scheme just a better return on investment.
You point out that the task of the River class is to police low-medium threat enviroments leaveing the blue water ships to do there job. Again I agree with you. Using your arguement is a T23/45 the best vessel to use in the Staits of Hormuz, or anti piracy patrol or drug busting patrols. A billion £ destroyer going after a skiff, really, is that a good use for the investment. They are blue water ships the best type of ship for that area would be a vessel that operates in brown or green water, able to defend itself against most types of attack, to be able to give a nation the thought prosess of do I really want to try it against this or that ship. If you agree then it is the same question what is better to carry out that task, a River class Batch2, a Krabi or a Khareef.
I am not saying that the Rivers are bad ships, there not, useful in the fishery protection role etc, but when I do a direct cost comparison we could have got a vessel with a 57mm two 30mm guns with LMMs and a helicopter hanger with a fitted for but not with VLS SAM system and upto 8 Anti Ship Missiles again fitted for but not with. All for the same price as we have for a Batch 2. They could also act as convoy escort if needed, a battlegroup force multiplyer passing through a region or choke point and go into harms way if must. Is that not the job of a ship of war to go into harms way and show a nations intent or resolve?
In some ways I would have saved money., by building the patrol ships on the lines of the Khareef class only with it guns armourment but FFBNW its missile systems and ARTSAN radar suite these would have come from the decommisioned T23s. Contanorised CAPTAS4 light could be then used either on the RN version of the Khareef or the T31s possibly 6 systems for the ten ships with one always in the workshop.
To be very honest if I could have had the five patrol ships built on the Khareef class I would have also built 10 Hamina class type vessels two for each of the patrol ships to operate as small squadrons in coastal, sea lane choke points or regional waters. That would have meant extra money possibly an extra billion for the build which is a lot then again look how much the nation has wasted in 2020.
So are the Rivers bad ships, no but we could have had so much more for the same price.
Ron, you seem to be missing the point.
The cost of River B2 = Cost of ship/equipment (built efficiently) + TOBA “subsidy” (less efficient build to support employment/workforce training and BAES financial subsidy to maintain manufacturing capabilities/facilities)
When you do comparisons to Krabi and Khareef costs you are ignoring the BAES TOBA “subsidy”.
How much is that TOBA “subsidy”?
“The TOBA, signed in July 2009, provides MOD guarantees to BAE Systems of a minimum level of ship build and support activity of around £230 million/year.” It’s a 15 year agreement that expires in July 2024. Note that these funds are designed to compensate BAES, in other words buying expensive equipment to put on a ship only benefits BAES to the extent that they add margin on top of the equipment purchase cost.
Had we wanted a corvette like Khareef then the cost would have been significantly more, perhaps well on its way to the base T31 cost.
No, I get your point. But:
“I agree, so with that being the case should we not get the most capable platform for the limited capital.”
NO I disagree vehemently here. Ruthless prioritization is important. Every bit of upgrade that goes onto a River is money that is not spent somwhere else. Put a 76mm on Rivers? Okay, then what do we cut to afford it? A Type 31? Is that worth it? I do not think so.
No, we can not find an extra 400 sailors to fix up the issue. Look at the lengths the RN went to to keep manning down on the QE’s. In fact, the RN is taking green lids of Royal so as to increase the number of sailors without having to increase it’s over all headcount (and therefore the paycheck it has to pay). Just saying “We can get another 400 sailors in,” for an upgrade that frankly isn’t worth the money being spent on it, doesn’t cut it.
A type 45 is not the best vessel to use in the straights of Hormuz. A Type 31 is. (And by the way the reason the straights of Hormuz is a environment for a Type 31 is because the threat is fast gunboats, that may have AShM’s and aircover, so please drop the “billion £ destroyer chasing a skiff.” As for drug busting patrols, yup, that’s why Rivers are good for deployments in places like the Carribean: Low threat environments where they can nab drug dealers and the like, and you do not need a 40mm, let alone a 76mm for that kind of work. It’s also worth noting that with a range of 5,500miles, and an endurance of over a month the Rivers are blue water ships.
If I am chasing boats with drug runners on them what’s better:
A ship I can spend 35 days at sea and cover 5,500miles in with 50 people on board, or a ship I can spend 21 days at sea in, cover 1,000 miles less and have to pay an double the crew? I know the answer, and it’s not the Khareef.
So could you have the Khareef/insert OPV here. Yes but it would be a net loss to the RN. Because it’s worse at the Patrol role, you’ll need to backfill station, because it requires crew we can’t afford it means cutting manning somewhere else, and because it’s more expensive to run and maintain that means cutting funding to something else.
“In return you loose two weeks of endurance.” Annnnd right there is the crux. Rivers are supposed to spend maximum time at sea for minimum maintenance cost. That is their number 1 capability and they are world beaters at it. Every system added reduced the amount of time they can spend at sea, and increases the manning and cost of keeping them out there.
You don’t need 76mm to police the falklands, nor do you need them for anti-smuggling operations in the med. As Andy P has said, this gets covered almost every time the words River and OPV get mentioned.
I do agree in that the River batch 2s could of been brought into service as a Corvette type vessel but that wasnt what they are needed for. We needed a long range, long endurance offshore patrol vessel to safeguard our EEZ. For that role they are perfect. If in the future the RN does decide to go down the Corvette route to add hull numbers to a stretched out order of battle then yes agree use the River batch 2 hull and propulsion as a baseline for a corvette.
Another addition to the RN and she will free up the other ships to go elsewhere!
They are worth the money and will be much needed
After an initial bad press, they are certainly coming in to their own now!
Do we know how much these ships in their present minimal weapons fit actually cost to build, ignoring the contracted subsidy to BAE? How much more would it cost to upgrade their firepower without reducing their days at sea capability?
It is good to see the final River Batch II finally reach its Home Base. I am impressed with the scale and quality of these upscaled and updated patrol boats.
I know many say that the RN never wanted these and that they were a political purchase only.
But, these are very capable vessels and they are welcome additions to the fleet.
Good job. Beautiful ships they are.
I also want to know the cost ingredients, what is spent for the 5 hulls, and what is added for T26 work-force support for nearly 3 years of delay of T26 build.
I agree if RN/MOD was not stupid, they should have had a plan-B for T26, preparing a “more useful” Patrol Vessel design, say 3 Al Khareef-based 100m hulls.
Now configured for EEZ patrol, River B2 is enough equipped. More armaments will just increase cost and reduce efficiency. Task definition comes before equipment.
One rationale I can propose for “up-arming” River B2 is to promote UK-weaponaries’ export. Adding LMM on 30mm turret will be “impressive”. Fully utilizing both sides of the crane to carry Atlas ARCIMS USVs and/or BAE 9m RHIB-USV. All of these can be done without significant investment, and they will also be useful in patroling roles. So, “uparm” two of the River B2s as such, and use it for port-visit world-wide?
I doubt we’ll ever be able to nail down exactly what premium over cost resulted from TOBA. In any given year the premium/cost inflation is likely to be variable based on how much shipbuilding and support BAES does below the annual agreed amount.
“The TOBA, signed in July 2009, provides MOD guarantees to BAE Systems of a minimum level of ship build and support activity of around £230 million/year.” It’s a 15 year agreement that expires in July 2024.
So presumably from 2009, QEC and POW modules, B2 and then T26 from 2017 on have contributed to the annual “around £230 million/year”
Getting more out of this class was mentioned by an RN spokesmen some months ago. The original low weapon fit was widely seen as resulting from fears they might undermine the case for frigates in the eyes of the treasury. With the type 31 contract now in place, such fears may have lessened. And if helicopter operation is going to be a rare occurrence, there would seem to be plenty of space for additional weapons. I am now much more concerned by the proposed weapons fit for type31. It seems crazy to opt for such a large hull but equip it like an opv.
The R2 s are indeed good looking ships.
Needs more weapons debate.
Depends what we are asking them to do. Fishery protection and anti drugs patrols don’t require ships bristling with weapons (a recce drone would be very handy though). However if we are going to ask the Rivers to escort warships and convoy oil tankers through difficult waters then they absolutely do need up gunning.
At a minimum need a containerized S-100 Schiebel Copter with radar and other attachments (or two) and add martlet to it and the 30mm gun. All complimentary add much wider search area and minimal extra offensive and defensive capability.
I’m more interested to find out how/where these ships will be deployed. Aside from Forth replacing Clyde in The South Atlantic Medway in The West Indies makes sense to fly the flag and access smaller ports in company with a larger RFA that can provide humanitarian relief in the hurricane season. Similarly Trent in The Mediterranean is a good fit to provide an enduring intelligence capability in support of NATO operations.
Aside from these 3 where else could a River make a meaningful impact? I’d argue East of Suez the Red Sea and Persian Gulf as too ‘hot’ to deploy platforms without sufficient defensive capabilities. There’s been talk of sending 1 or 2 to Singapore but it’s hard to see what role they’d fulfill in a region where our allies are trying to counter a growing Chinese presence. Semi regular visits by the carrier-group from next year and maybe a T31 once they arrive would offer a far more useful and impressive contribution.
My assumption when the batch 1’s were retained was that it would lead to a beefing up of the OPV presence around the UK, which frankly even before Brexit and the migrant crises was much needed.
Piracy is on the rise worldwide and these vessels seem very appropriate for that plus drug running interdiction. So West African waters esp. Gulf of Guinea, East African waters (but not hotspots close to shore around Yemen), Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean, Malacca and Singapore Straits, etc
https://www.marineinsight.com/marine-piracy-marine/10-maritime-piracy-affected-areas-around-the-world/
With at least 3 deployed overseas it won’t surprise me if one stays in the UK for crews to “work up” on before being sent out to take over their ship. Perhaps a Batch 1 will be similiar enough to negate the need for that, but then again perhaps not.
Singapore wouldn’t surprise either me actually. I was having a conversation (I think with Engaging Strategy) on twitter a few weeks back, and it was pointed out that a) any vessel posted, “even” a River would be a signal of commitment to the region, and b) A lot of what is going on in the SCS is trawlers and fishing boats bullying eachother with non-leathal force, Rivers definietly can do that (arguably better than a Type 31). Not sure I agree with the sentiment, and I have mixed feeling about it if the region turns “hot,” (but then any lone ship in the area will need to scarper if it turns hot until a fleet can show up) but I do conceede the point.
Personally I think the most likely format we will see is:
Batch 1’s on UK Fisheries duties and escorting in the channel.
1 Batch 2 in the Falklands
1 Batch 2 in Gib (Med, West Atlantic, NATO task groups)
1-2 Batch 2 “Roving” (Caribean, NATO standing task group, whatever is required at the time)
1 Batch 2 “Working up”
0-1 Batch 2’s in maintenance.
Whilst I think the Batch II are a significant improvement over the Batch I, I think they missed the boat (pun intended) by not utilising the rear deck more efficiently.
Here in Oz, 12 x 80m Arafura class OPVs are currently under construction to replace the Armadale class PBs, see link below:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=arafura+class&client=safari&hl=en-au&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjtsfFj-XsAhW5xTgGHQJ0DV0Q_AUoAnoECAoQAg&biw=375&bih=553&dpr=2#imgrc=_OvWLcf4OCrUFM&imgdii=r8EuZMDC30WfIM
What I particularly like is that the large flight deck is raised higher and underneath is a full length mission deck, gives twice the useable space available without increasing the length of the ship.
The mission deck can store 4-5 containers, which can be raised to the flight deck via two lifts, the containers can be used to store UAVs and other mission appropriate equipment, there is also a stern ramp for operating a 10.5m RHIB (there are also two 8.5m RHIBs mounted forward of the flight deck too.
The government here in Oz also announced mid year that up to another 8 OPVs are planned (potentially bringing the OPV fleet to 20 ships), they will be able to carry containerised systems for mine warfare and hydrographic roles.
Anyway, as I said I think the Batch II Rivers are a significant improvement over Batch I, but maybe the RN could have got a bit more bang for their money if a bit more thought had gone into the design.
Cheers,
Odd why they removed the helicopter capabilities though ? It’s probably worth mentioning that the Oz vessels are fitted/designed accordingly, to their desired roles (Which is different to the Brits)
They are certainly useful platforms but I think they will spend much of their early years covering for the lack of frigates because we are going to see the Type 23s being paid off quicker than currently proposed is my guess. It is an easy cut for the defence review. A short term saving which also eases crewing difficulties. It is going to be a long time before we have more than 13 frigates if ever.
can they be modified to cut french fishing nets /
I know that the Rivers don’t get much love on this site but compared to many nations our patrol fleet isn’t enough. There was a thing on tv a few days back about fishing grounds or something like that around Tristan da Cunha, St Helena and Ascension being nearly 700,000km square. What’s patrolling that?
We could easily have three Rivers part of FP in the North Sea, one on FRE, a couple reftting at home, one each in the Falklands and Caribbean, a couple patrolling out in the South Atlantic and another one or two in the Med. Granted, the Aussies had the better idea with a mission bay under the flight deck for containers but what’s done is done. A theoretical Batch 3 (ha) could be made to implement that and if the MCMV are replaced (that’s ridiculous) they could act as a force multiplier if they can carry four or five USV/UUV. Or even combine the two roles and have the minehunters become more like motherships to the drones doing the dirty work.